But here's another case where people don't understand libertarianism or what it's about, as we see from Baldwin's tweet here.
As Nick Gillespie at Reason says, "I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the 'libertarian trash' at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality."
As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
11-15-2013 11:47 AM
Advertisement
SumOfAllFears
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
Posts: 18,182
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
But here's another case where people don't understand libertarianism or what it's about, as we see from Baldwin's tweet here.
As Nick Gillespie at Reason says, "I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the 'libertarian trash' at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality."
As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
Breitbarters and "Libertarians" have rarely been the friend of Gay persons. They generally push freedom issues for us to the sidelines (lip service - but no action) or think that we, and we alone, should be the first group not to be protected and let the market decide.
That being said, AB needs to face some criticism for this. And GLAAD is on the case here.
RE: Alec Baldwin - Always a Source of Entertainment
(11-15-2013 11:47 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote: As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
If anything, this is proof that just throwing around a few words doesn't mean they express your entire social philosophy, which means I don't think Baldwin hates gays, but cuss words sure come in handy at times.
As for the rest of the story, I don't blame Baldwin for getting upset with the idiots who worship his life over their own. And I don't think it comes with the territory - can we invade the lives of other groups just because it comes with the territory?
But here's another case where people don't understand libertarianism or what it's about, as we see from Baldwin's tweet here.
As Nick Gillespie at Reason says, "I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the 'libertarian trash' at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality."
As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
Breitbarters and "Libertarians" have rarely been the friend of Gay persons. They generally push freedom issues for us to the sidelines (lip service - but no action) or think that we, and we alone, should be the first group not to be protected and let the market decide.
That being said, AB needs to face some criticism for this. And GLAAD is on the case here.
:jawdrop:WHAAAAAT?? I not sure how you can say this when in fact libertarians are about liberty.
I am a libertarian(mostly) i don't care if you are gay, straight or bi. It doesn't affect me. I don't want the government in any of it. Do i think there should be gay marriage should be legal. NO! but that because i don't want any marriage to be legal. The government should not be marrying people. It should purely be a personal thing.
RE: Alec Baldwin - Always a Source of Entertainment
(11-15-2013 12:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: Breitbarters and "Libertarians" have rarely been the friend of Gay persons. They generally push freedom issues for us to the sidelines (lip service - but no action) or think that we, and we alone, should be the first group not to be protected and let the market decide.
That being said, AB needs to face some criticism for this. And GLAAD is on the case here.
On the contrary, aside from maybe the Greens, you probably have no greater political friend than in Libertarians*.
The listed platform regarding LGBT rights are found here, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a more "liberal" approach than that.
Here is LP presidential candidate Gary Johnson attending a Pridefest in 2012:
* Granted, I'm talking about libertarians who get the ideology. I concur that there are those who may call themselves 'libertarian' for whatever reason, but hardly adhere to the social issues platform.
RE: Alec Baldwin - Always a Source of Entertainment
(11-15-2013 01:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote: If anything, this is proof that just throwing around a few words doesn't mean they express your entire social philosophy, which means I don't think Baldwin hates gays, but cuss words sure come in handy at times.
To be honest, I don't think he truly does either. Although some say one's true feelings show themselves when either mad and/or drunk (see Mel Gibson's tirades when his filter is gone). Still, it shows that even a self described liberal can let their guard down and resort to those types of 'cuss words' when fired up.
(11-15-2013 01:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote: As for the rest of the story, I don't blame Baldwin for getting upset with the idiots who worship his life over their own. And I don't think it comes with the territory - can we invade the lives of other groups just because it comes with the territory?
Yep, again I agree. Some photography in public places is to be expected, as long as they mind their space and focus on the celebrity, but some of these paparazzi get really pushy and invasive - including toward the kids.
11-15-2013 01:12 PM
SumOfAllFears
Grim Reaper of Misguided Liberal Souls
Posts: 18,182
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 58
I Root For: America
Location:
RE: Alec Baldwin - Always a Source of Entertainment
Democratic loyalists like Tom like to conveniently forget that Obama publicly opposed gay marriage equality for the first three years of his Presidency, only changing his tune when he needed to re-energize his base. They also like to ignore that Gary Johnson has always (even as a Republican governor) been a supporter of gay marriage equality at the federal level.
RE: Alec Baldwin - Always a Source of Entertainment
(11-15-2013 01:30 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: Democratic loyalists like Tom like to conveniently forget that Obama publicly opposed gay marriage equality for the first three years of his Presidency, only changing his tune when he needed to re-energize his base. They also like to ignore that Gary Johnson has always (even as a Republican governor) been a supporter of gay marriage equality at the federal level.
Had Gary Johnson or the Utah Governor have had any chance of actually doing something within the GOP, we would have looked at them.
There's a reality to face here. And that reality is that the GOP, at least the elected ones, are overwhelmingly opposed to LGBT equality at every level. And beyond the ones and twos that actually might vote for some level of equality, they aren't usually leading equality.
Obama vs. McCain? No brainer. Especially the McCain of 2008. Obama vs. Romney. No brainer.
And yes, there is some political calculating going on here. But it works both ways. An elected Democrat might feel pressure to move towards equality as a result of the base. An elected Republican usually faces a primary threat if they move towards inclusion.
But here's another case where people don't understand libertarianism or what it's about, as we see from Baldwin's tweet here.
As Nick Gillespie at Reason says, "I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the 'libertarian trash' at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality."
As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
Breitbarters and "Libertarians" have rarely been the friend of Gay persons. They generally push freedom issues for us to the sidelines (lip service - but no action) or think that we, and we alone, should be the first group not to be protected and let the market decide.
That being said, AB needs to face some criticism for this. And GLAAD is on the case here.
:jawdrop:WHAAAAAT?? I not sure how you can say this when in fact libertarians are about liberty.
I am a libertarian(mostly) i don't care if you are gay, straight or bi. It doesn't affect me. I don't want the government in any of it. Do i think there should be gay marriage should be legal. NO! but that because i don't want any marriage to be legal. The government should not be marrying people. It should purely be a personal thing.
Yea, well you could argue for Gay inclusion in marriage while you worked towards removing any state recognition of it.
But no. Libertarians such as yourself always tend to stand in the way of inclusion.
It goes double, oops I mean triple for ENDA. Why not advocate for removing protections for relgion in employment non-discrimination laws first? I don't see any more than lipservice (and very weak lipservice at that) by any of the Libertarians. The result is the same...the Libertarians aren't really opposed to state sponsored marriage and non-discrimination, but rather using that as an excuse to oppose equality for LGBT persons.
But here's another case where people don't understand libertarianism or what it's about, as we see from Baldwin's tweet here.
As Nick Gillespie at Reason says, "I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the 'libertarian trash' at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality."
As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
Breitbarters and "Libertarians" have rarely been the friend of Gay persons. They generally push freedom issues for us to the sidelines (lip service - but no action) or think that we, and we alone, should be the first group not to be protected and let the market decide.
That being said, AB needs to face some criticism for this. And GLAAD is on the case here.
That is a blatant lie Tom. Libertarians could not give 2 ***** what people do as long as they do not violate the principle of non aggression. You just want us to coddle and put gays in some "special" class. We don't work that way. I am sorry that you don't understand what principles are are but... That is your damn problem.
AB can say what ever the hell he want to say...He did not violate the principle of non aggression in any fashion. No fraud..no violence..no theft..no destruction of property. I don't like AB. I think he is an arrogant asswipe. The problem is...I don't have some right to not be offended. Get the F over it and ignore this fool.
But here's another case where people don't understand libertarianism or what it's about, as we see from Baldwin's tweet here.
As Nick Gillespie at Reason says, "I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the 'libertarian trash' at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality."
As for Baldwin himself... While he's obviously someone who needs to control his temper, I can actually understand him getting angry when papparazzi shove cameras in the faces of his kids. I know it's legal in a public place. I know it "comes with the territory" of being a Hollywood celebrity. But despite my disdain for the whole Hollywood cult, I tend to empathize with those who are constantly badgered by these TMZ-tabloid-paparazzi types. Let 'em be, for chrissakes.
But I do smile when an openly die-hard liberal Democrat, who spends a decent amount of time railing against the "right wing," is caught so often in the middle of anti-gay controversies.
I still love Alec in Glengarry Glen Ross though. Classic.
Breitbarters and "Libertarians" have rarely been the friend of Gay persons. They generally push freedom issues for us to the sidelines (lip service - but no action) or think that we, and we alone, should be the first group not to be protected and let the market decide.
That being said, AB needs to face some criticism for this. And GLAAD is on the case here.
:jawdrop:WHAAAAAT?? I not sure how you can say this when in fact libertarians are about liberty.
I am a libertarian(mostly) i don't care if you are gay, straight or bi. It doesn't affect me. I don't want the government in any of it. Do i think there should be gay marriage should be legal. NO! but that because i don't want any marriage to be legal. The government should not be marrying people. It should purely be a personal thing.
Yea, well you could argue for Gay inclusion in marriage while you worked towards removing any state recognition of it.
But no. Libertarians such as yourself always tend to stand in the way of inclusion.
It goes double, oops I mean triple for ENDA. Why not advocate for removing protections for relgion in employment non-discrimination laws first? I don't see any more than lipservice (and very weak lipservice at that) by any of the Libertarians. The result is the same...the Libertarians aren't really opposed to state sponsored marriage and non-discrimination, but rather using that as an excuse to oppose equality for LGBT persons.
Like I said...You want to be special. You are not. Libertarians don't treat people special or otherwise. We don't get on bandwagons to separate individuals from each other. We consider everyone an individual and as long as they live the principle of non aggression?...have at what ever lifestyle you wish.
![[Image: abtweet2.jpg?h=115&w=500]](http://cloudfront-media.reason.com/mc/ngillespie/2013_11/abtweet2.jpg?h=115&w=500)
